So why the dislike? Not offended – interested.
Part of the reason that I dislike it is the scope of game I generally play. If I were to play a very low level game, I would not object to it. However, the scope of games I generally play involve a lot of “you hired people for that” – as in the officer running the battery of artillery is at least one if not multiple levels of command below the player. Thus, there is an “apparatus” of knowledge surrounding the player.
The other, more general reason, is that; as someone else pointed out; the overwhelming majority of command officers have *some* level of training. The direct analogy to the wargamer is how familiar the player is with the rules. As a community we commonly talk about how we “want to play the history/period/whatever, not the rules” and to my mind one of the ways to help that desire come to execution is to assume the player has a base of command knowledge “built-in” that prevents him or her from making ridiculous mistakes. An easy example is: the player chooses to deploy artillery *way* out of range of the enemy because they don’t realize the effective scale range of the artillery. That doesn’t get to the question of should players be required to correctly judge/guess if something is at 3″ vs 4″ but it is addressed by the same general rules design.
The broad facet of the question is what all the actual actors had available to them for addressing such practical concerns, and is the player provided with those same ones? For artillery, one example of that is that guns generally would fire for range before firing for effect. While some (few) game systems provide that as an overt mechanic, many either effectively include it by allowing pre-measuring, or do not include it by denying pre-measurement and not providing a different mechanic.